District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 529/2022.
Date of Institution:29.09.2022.
Date of Order:25.07.2023
Kailash Bidhuri Advocate, c/o Chamber No. 70, GF, Lawyers Chamber, Distt. Courts Sec-12, Faridabad and residing of House No. 162/8, village Ankhir, Tehsil & District Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited Registered office -6th floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001 through tis Director/Authorized Representative.
Corporate office – 20th to 23th floor, Two Horizon Center, Golf Course road, sec.-33, DLF Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 202, phone No. 0123-3881233.
2. Samsung Service Center, Simran Communication c/o Plot NO. 1-D, Ist floor, Railway Road, Faridabad – 121001 through its Service Manager . E-mail –e support.India @ Samsung.com.
3. Universal Cellular, Point Shop No.33-A, 3-5 Chowk, K.C.Road, NIT, Faridabad 3 9818237537.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Nitin Chandila, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 16.01.2023.
Sh. Atin Parashar, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Samsung Galazy A52S Mobile phone, white colour having model No. SM-A528BZWGINS and serial No. RZCR907R27E vide invoice No. 39093 dated 17.10.2021 for a total sale consideration of Rs.31,000/- from opposite party No.3. At the time of purchase of the above described mobile phone from opposite party No.3, the opposite party No.3 had explained the above mentioned mobile phone as one of the best product of Samsung. Opposite party No.3 further explained before complainant that the above mentioned mobile was free from all defects and was covered under warranty for a period of one year from the date of its purchased. Opposite party No.3 further explained and misrepresented complainant that repair of all parts would be provided by the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 if any defect occurs or found in the product. Opposite party No.3 further explained the warranty before complainant that free replacement also been given by the company against its warranty. By relying and trusting upon the statement of opposite party No.3, the complainant had bought the above mentioned mobile from opposite party No.3. On 02.09.2022, the complainant faced the difficulties in the above mentioned mobile phone while the screen of the aforesaid phone started blinking itself without pressing any button. The mobile phone further got switched off immediately and stopped responding. Immediately complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with the same issues and requested the opposite party No.2 to either repair or replace the phone but the authorized executive Mr. Vivek in the service center, without checking or even touching the phone and finding out the reasons for switched off the phone, refused to repair the phone of the complainant which was under warranty. A job sheet issued to the complainant by opposite party No.3 without assigning any warranty reason. Although, complainant had noted certain down objections on the job sheet and made a complaint on customer care service No. 1800-30-7267863 without causing any further delay. ON 05.09.2022, the complainant had received a call from opposite party No.2 and informed complainant that the mother board as well as the led display of the phone got damaged and the repair cost would be about Rs.26,000/-. Complainant was felt under utter surprised as the opposite party No.2 directed complainant to pay Rs.26000/- against the repair of the mobile phone. When the complainant demand back to hand over the mobile as well as denial letter, opposite party No.2 denied the same without make the payment like engineer fee, inspection charges etc. Now the original mobile phone was in possession of opposite party No.2, till date. The complainant sent legal notice dated 08.09.2022 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) replace the above mentioned mobile handset with new branded one or to refund the entire sale consideration paid by the complainant alongwith interest jointly or severally.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the unit had been duly checked by the engineer of service center of answering company and same was found damaged (i.e. the mobile was found damaged and bend) and as per warranty policy conditions, the unit was out of warranty and the complainant was duly in knowledge and information regarding the same and as per the warranty terms and conditions, the services/repair of the unit was required to be done on chargeable basis, but knowing well the all circumstances, the complainant had made false story just only to grab illegal benefits of his own wrong. It was further submitted that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 27.10.2021 and after using the mobile for a considerable period of approximate eleven months, the complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the unit. It was submitted that as per the settled position of law, the complainant could not make allegations regarding alleged manufacturing defect in the unit as the unit had been used by the complainant for a considerable period of app. 11 months. In fact, the complainant approached to the service center of answering company for first and the last time on 03.09.2022 vide call No. 4354917461 and reported display damage and bend problem in his unit. The engineer of the service center got deposited the unit and checked the unit on same day and found that the unit was bend and damaged. The engineer told to the complainant that the mobile was out of warranty due to damage and bend and as per the warranty policy, the repair of the unit should be on chargeable basis and an estimate of repair was provided to the complainant, but the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair and started demanding free of cost repair. It was duly told to the complainant that the repair of unit should be on chargeable basis as the unit was damaged, but the complainant remained adamant to not to pay the charges and left the unit at service center without repair. After that, the service center many times contacted to the complainant and requested to either get the unit repaired as per warranty policy conditions or to collect the unit from service center, but the complainant remained mum. It was submitted that the mobile of the complainant was damaged and out of warranty and the answering company offered/provided services to the complainant as per warranty conditions, but it was the complainant who was not ready to get unit repaired as per warranty policy and the complainant refused to collect his unit, so there was no deficiency in services on the part of answering company. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back with the report of “Refusal”. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order 16.01.2023.
4. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party, because the answering opposite party was un-necessary party, as it was clear from the invoice/bill issued to the complainant against the purchased mobile bearing invoice No. 39093 dated 17.10.2021 clearly mentioned that ”Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchange. Replacement and repair under warranty will be done by Auth. Service Centre only”. Further the complainant duly accepted this condition while purchasing the mobile phone by receiving the said invoice. Hence, the complaint of the complainant was liable to be rejected on this score alone. Even this fact duly admitted by the complainant in para No. 10 of the complaint as under: 10 – That as per terms and conditions of the invoice, if any defect found in the mobile, the authorized service center shall be replaced or repaired the same, under warranty”.Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Samsung India Electronics Private Limited with the prayer to: a) replace the above mentioned mobile handset with new branded one or to refund the entire sale consideration paid by the complainant alongwith interest jointly or severally. b)pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of complainant, Annexure C-1 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-2 & 3 – photographs, Ex.C-4 – email dated 03.09.2022, Ex.C-5 – Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.C-6 - email dated 03.09.2022, Ex.C-7 – Acknowledgement of service request,, Ex.C-8 - recents, Ex.C-9 - last used: Primary unknown, Ex.C-10 & 11 – photographs, Ex.C-12 – legal notice, Ex.C13 to 16 – postal receipts, Ex.C-17 to20 – track consignment.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri sandeep Sahijwani, Authorised person, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 60th floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, Ex.R-1 – warranty card, Ex.R2- to R5- photographs, Ex.R-6 – estimate, Ex.R-7 – Technical report.
Shri Atin Parashar, counsel for opposite party No.3 has suffered a statement that written statement already filed be read as evidence of opposite party No.3.. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3 has been closed vide order dated 13.07.2023.
8. In this case the complainant had purchased Samsung Galazy A52S Mobile phone, white colour having model No. SM-A528BZWGINS and serial No. RZCR907R27E vide invoice No. 39093 dated 17.10.2021 for a total sale consideration of Rs.31,000/- from opposite party No.3 vide Ex.C-1. On 02.09.2022, the complainant faced the difficulties in the above mentioned mobile phone while the screen of the aforesaid phone started blinking itself without pressing any button. The mobile phone further got switched off immediately and stopped responding vide Ex.C-2 to 3. It is evident from Acknowledgement of Service Request vide Ex.C-7 the authorized Executive in the service center, without checking or even touching the phone and finding out the reasons for switched off the phone, refused to repair the phone of the complainant which was under warranty. The complainant has also placed on record the photographs of the mobile Ex.C-10 to C-11.
9. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the mobile phone in question with the same model to the complainant.
There are no order as to costs. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old mobile phone in question to the opposite party No.1 after receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 25.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
